Re: [OPE-L] "Capitalism in crisis can only lengthen the working day" [!]

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Tue Sep 27 2005 - 19:14:45 EDT


It is "one-sided Marxism"  because it  assumes that whatever capital
wants, capital gets.  Hence the presumption that when capitalism is
in crisis the outcome in reference to the length of the working day
can _only_ be a lengthening.

It is one-sided also in the following because it presumes that
reductions in the length of the working day -- and indeed "any reforms
for the working class" -- can _only_ occur after the "seizure of
power" by the working class.

All of this is said with an air of inevitability -- indeed, the author
claims  that the following is "obvious" from Marx's critique.  What
should be obvious, though, is that within this framework there is no
role _whatsoever_ for the working class to struggle for limited reforms
and win.  Hence, the class struggle is not a struggle at all -- the results
are pre-determined and dictated by the will, actions, and structure
of capital.  Within this context, the working class is merely an object
rather than a subject.   That's why I indicated that I viewed it as an
excellent example of one-side Marxism.

In referring to it being one-sided, I was using -- I believe --
Michael L's understanding of what constitutes one-sided Marxism.
He can correct me if I am mistaken, of course.

In solidarity, Jerry

> >
> > "Taking this critique [Marx's critique in _Capital_, JL] as a whole, it
> > is obvious that any reforms for the working class, any reduction
> > in the working day for example, can only henceforth come about
> > after the seizure of power by the proletariat and as steps towards
> > a fully communist society."

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 28 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT